tool_set_extension

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the overwrite behavior ('If the student already has an extension, it will be overwritten'), permission requirements ('Requires instructor or TA access'), and the confirmation mechanism ('confirm_write: Must be True to apply the extension update'). It doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or what the output contains, but provides substantial operational context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured with purpose first, then behavioral notes, then detailed parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the core function, the next three describe critical behaviors, and the parameter section provides essential context. There's no redundant or verbose content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, behavior, permissions, parameter semantics, and constraints. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. Minor gaps include lack of error case descriptions and no explicit distinction from sibling tools like 'tool_modify_assignment_dates'.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 7 parameters. It clarifies the purpose of each parameter, provides format requirements ('ISO format: YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM'), ordering constraints ('Dates must be in order: release_date <= due_date <= late_due_date'), and special requirements ('At least one date must be provided', 'confirm_write: Must be True'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Add or update an extension for a student on an assignment') and identifies the resources involved (student, assignment, extension). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'tool_get_extensions' (which reads extensions) and 'tool_modify_assignment_dates' (which modifies assignment-level dates rather than student-specific extensions).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when managing student-specific assignment extensions. It mentions prerequisites ('Requires instructor or TA access') and references a related tool ('user_id... found via get_course_roster'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. modifying assignment-level dates with 'tool_modify_assignment_dates') or provide alternatives for related operations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.